[Robert]

There has been some discussion/speculation elsewhere about the modification and necessary brewhouse handling of this malt.  Just got another sack and this time had the sense to go online for the lot analysis before I threw the bag out.   With some conversion of units, salient points are:

Moisture  4.3%
FGDB 79.6%
Protein 11.56%
S/T 48.5%
Friability 86.1%
Glassy 2.7%
DP 97° Lintner

So the one thing that really stands out is that glassy kernels number.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

[stpug]

I emailed Crisp a couple times regarding specs for my sack and they never responded.  Where were you able to get spec info on this malt?

The FGDB also seems a tad low, and is what I've experienced when using this malt (i.e. lower original gravities); especially since we're generally not in the "fine grind" range of malt potential.

Thanks for sharing your specs.  Overall, I find this malt to be absolutely stellar, in terms of flavor.  It's got all of the higher kilned, lightly toasted bread character without dipping into the biscuity MO area.  Much more going on then the other typical UK Pale Ale malts.

[Robert]

Find the reference number, lot number or whatever they call it on the label on the sack, and go to the BSG website to get a lot analysis.  I agree this stuff is worth all the trouble.  Low yield is easy to accept when the extract you do get is, as you say, stellar.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

[stpug]

Here's the analysis of my sack (thanks for point the way, btw!):
https://bsgcraft.com/Resources/CraftBrewing/COA/Chevallier%20Ale%20Malt%20CM50167099%20SS12462%2053285-1%20.pdf

It's a bit different than yours with just enough DP to convert itself plus equal portions of non-diastatic grain, given a good mashing regime.  It's possible that my lower-then-expect gravities are tied to the lower DP of this particular sack.  I may need to be giving a bit more time - or added step - to my step mashing.  Sadly, no protein or glassiness listed for my sack.

[Robert]

Protein is nitrogen x 6.25.  Mine just gave nitrogen too.  At least your sheet shows DP as Lintner, I had to convert from Windisch-Kolbach, everything was given EBC style.  Funny the units are different.  Maybe if I kept looking they have sheets in different units.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

[hopfenundmalz]

Here's the analysis of my sack (thanks for point the way, btw!):

https://bsgcraft.com/Resources/CraftBrewing/COA/Chevallier%20Ale%20Malt%20CM50167099%20SS12462%2053285-1%20.pdf

It's a bit different than yours with just enough DP to convert itself plus equal portions of non-diastatic grain, given a good mashing regime.  It's possible that my lower-then-expect gravities are tied to the lower DP of this particular sack.  I may need to be giving a bit more time - or added step - to my step mashing.  Sadly, no protein or glassiness listed for my sack.

A 51.6 Kohlbach index points to over modification, which means the shoot got too long, using up starch, so less to convert

[stpug]

A 51.6 Kohlbach index points to over modification, which means the shoot got too long, using up starch, so less to convert

Thanks for pointing that out, I had forgotten the meaning of Kohlbach index.  I just reviewed Noonan's Lager book and you're absolutely correct - overmodified malt, less starch, less sugar potential, thinner body (which I've experienced).  I'm glad you chimed in when you did because now I can adjust my export stout formulation before I brew it in a couple hours!

Cheers to you both!

[hopfenundmalz]

 Your welcome.

[Robert]

I'm taking the S/T on this malt with a grain of salt, because, for one thing, it is unevenly modified  --  a tendency bred out of modern barley varieties.   My experience is that despite this number, the resultant beer has body and foam qualities far superior to anything I've used before.  I think the low (by current standards) yield is attributable to the higher protein and, especially,  the percentage of glassy/ steely, that is, under modified, kernels.  I've cut open a lot of kernels and found no overgrown acrospires, but a certain amount undergrown.  I've also read that the S/T should generally be ignored as a poor indicator of modification as it is specific to variety:   some varieties can be fully modified at 37, some under modified approaching 50, and modification often continues well after the S/T has reached its peak and plateaued.

[hopfenundmalz]

I'm taking the S/T on this malt with a grain of salt, because, for one thing, it is unevenly modified  --  a tendency bred out of modern barley varieties.   My experience is that despite this number, the resultant beer has body and foam qualities far superior to anything I've used before.  I think the low (by current standards) yield is attributable to the higher protein and, especially,  the percentage of glassy/ steely, that is, under modified, kernels.  I've cut open a lot of kernels and found no overgrown acrospires, but a certain amount undergrown.  I've also read that the S/T should generally be ignored as a poor indicator of modification as it is specific to variety:   some varieties can be fully modified at 37, some under modified approaching 50, and modification often continues well after the S/T has reached its peak and plateaued.

Can you point me to a resource for that? I find that interesting, hope it is not Kunze, though Christmas is coming.

[Robert]

I'm taking the S/T on this malt with a grain of salt, because, for one thing, it is unevenly modified  --  a tendency bred out of modern barley varieties.   My experience is that despite this number, the resultant beer has body and foam qualities far superior to anything I've used before.  I think the low (by current standards) yield is attributable to the higher protein and, especially,  the percentage of glassy/ steely, that is, under modified, kernels.  I've cut open a lot of kernels and found no overgrown acrospires, but a certain amount undergrown.  I've also read that the S/T should generally be ignored as a poor indicator of modification as it is specific to variety:   some varieties can be fully modified at 37, some under modified approaching 50, and modification often continues well after the S/T has reached its peak and plateaued.

Can you point me to a resource for that? I find that interesting, hope it is not Kunze, though Christmas is coming.

I'm sure the BA Elements series on malt by John Mallett refers to this, and maybe there are references in the chapter on reading a COA.  Otherwise it's stuff lodged in my brain from years of books, articles and presentations.  It does make sense though, and jibes with my own experience with this malt.   I'll see if I can find more references. But don't worry,  pretty sure I learned this elsewhere than Kunze.
EDIT Just a start, but the mechanism of the apparent plateauing of solubility of nitrogen is addressed in DeClerck, ch. 7, sec. (E) (2.)  But I know that's not where I became aware of it.



Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

[Robert]

Into the new sack today, got a perfectly respectable yield.  (Assuming I didn't get an impossibly high yield from the brown and black malts in my porter!)  151°F 45 minutes, reached 88% of potential first wort density, 160°F 45 minutes, iodine negative,  99% potential first wort density,
 170°F 15 minutes, 100%.